[20] In response to the applicants’ contention that s. 65(5.7)substantially impedes the applicants’ ability to engage in mean-ingful debate, Ontario advances four main arguments:(1) the records excluded from FIPPA can be disclosed by gov-ernment outside FIPPA;

(3) some statistical information on abortions is already publiclyavailable; and(4) the impugned provision does not preclude meaningful debate.

[21] As to the existence of countervailing considerations which
are inconsistent with disclosure under FIPPA, Ontario cites the
safety and security concerns of hospitals, health care providers,
staff and patients. It is further stated that the disclosure of information related to abortion services is not compatible with the function of the institution concerned given that the objective was to
permit the flexibility to disclose the information outside of FIPPA.

[22] Finally, Ontario states that even if s. 2(b) of the Charter is
breached, such a breach is justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

Position of the intervenor

[23] The commissioner intervenes as a friend of the court with
leave. It took no position on the outcome of the application. Its
intervention focused on the role of the commission as a mechanism to provide access to information and to regulate the collection of personal information.

[24] The commission reviewed the difference between exemptions and exclusions and highlighted the existence of mandatory
and voluntary exemptions from FIPPA.

[25] The commission specified that as previously drafted,
access to information about abortion services prior to the passage of Bill 122 did not apply to personal health information as
such information was already protected under PHIPA.

[26] The commission highlighted that often, when broad
exclusions from FIPPA were created, these would include additional criteria.

[27] The commission could not point to any circumstance
under the pre-Bill 122 version of FIPPA where people were
concerned about too much information about abortions having
been released.

[28] Finally, the commission referred to the approach of
Ontario under the assisted dying legislation in Bill 84 where